Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

jail4judges · J.A.I.L. -- The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - A proposed law to increase the accountability of our judiciary.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 1582
  • Category: Law
  • Founded: May 20, 2000
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 1748 - 1777 of 1790   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#1748 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:53 pm
Subject: Debt Without Consequences
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Debt Without Consequences

What happens when society no longer considers that debt has any meaning? After all, debt is only figure with a number of zeros behind it. Right? Does it really matter whether American's owe a figure with fifteen zeros behind it, or twenty-one zeros? U.S. Treasurer Secretary Timothy Geithner thinks not. He said that Congress should just stop placing legal spending limits on the amount of money the government can borrow and lift all debt limits to infinity. Where this will lead is well explained on NaturalNews.com. Below are a couple paragraphs explaining what will happen. Imagine blowing air into a balloon unto infinity.

Posted at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/038050_Geithner_debt_ceiling_infinity.html#ixzz2CyoeIn5H

November 21, 2012
by Mike Adams


 The Day of Reckoning will arrive when the mass delusion of debt without consequence can no longer be sustained. Almost certainly, a war will have already been started in order to provide cover for the economic collapse. Because if there's one thing far worse than killing civilians in war, it's having voters find out Big Government cheated them out of their pensions, incomes and savings. Dropping a few bombs on some unlucky civilian population in a little-known nation somewhere is a surefire way to change the subject and blame somebody else for the problems created by runaway government spending.


As the consequences of infinite debt start to congeal, rest assured the government will try to save itself by confiscating nearly all wealth from the population. You can expect to see all the following taking place:

• Government confiscation of private pension funds and IRAs.
• Government confiscation of all precious metals (gold and silver).
• Huge increases in corporate and personal income taxes.
• Harsh new death taxes that effectively confiscate farms and ranches.
• Accelerated currency debasement that effectively "steals" the value of the dollars you've already earned.

This is the new era of not just "big government" but "MONSTER government!" It will now grow to the point where it suffocates freedom and liberty, enslaves the population and destroys everything of value in society: Wealth, morals, education, liberty and even rugged individualism.


*  *  *

Without Constitutional constant through judicial accountability, America shall have no meaningful future. Everyone shall morn the consequences. This scenario was stated by this writer in 1996, and we are only beginning to see the consequences of our actions. There is headed our way an economic tsunami that shall boggle the mind beyond measure and may lead to heart attacks!

- Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...




#1749 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:04 am
Subject: Approaching The Fiscal Cliff
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


Approaching The Fiscal Cliff

As we all know, Congress is wrestling with the oncoming January 1, 2013 fiscal cliff. The question, supposedly, on their table is whether they should raise the income tax level on the rich. While we all watch the debate between two sides is that the real financial debt we face is not even on the table. Even should Congress resolve the January 1, 2013 cliff before the drop-dead deadline, there still follows after it another "cliff" which makes this cliff look like a pot hole. Like Japan, first the earthquake, followed by the tsunami.

The fact is, government is hiding the real danger before all of us that they do not want to discuss or reveal. Below is a news article that draws a picture for us. Is this article published by some "right-wing" radical extremest trying to shock us in unbelief? No, this is from the establishment press of the November 28, 2012 Wall Street Journal. Interesting is, candidates from both political parties have been saying for years, "elect me, I will reduce the budget," yet every year, without fail, the budget only goes one way, up, at the engineering of both political parties, while they both practice to deceive us of the real picture.

What we can expect is quite predictable. Imagine an upheaval of everything we are accustom to experiencing in our daily lives. Take a look at the Nation of Greese as but a sample. It is time we turn our eyes upward and reverence Him with Whom we all stand before in judgment in humility.

-Ron Branson
Victory USA@...

*   *   *


Wall Street Journal
November 28, 2012

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html?mod=hp_opinion

Cox and Archer: Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt

Hiding the government's liabilities from the public makes it seem that we can tax our way out of mounting deficits. We can't.

By CHRIS COX AND BILL ARCHER 

A decade and a half ago, both of us served on President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, the forerunner to President Obama's recent National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. In 1994 we predicted that, unless something was done to control runaway entitlement spending, Medicare and Social Security would eventually go bankrupt or confront severe benefit cuts.

Eighteen years later, nothing has been done. Why? The usual reason is that entitlement reform is the third rail of American politics. That explanation presupposes voter demand for entitlements at any cost, even if it means bankrupting the nation.

A better explanation is that the full extent of the problem has remained hidden from policy makers and the public because of less than transparent government financial statements. How else could responsible officials claim that Medicare and Social Security have the resources they need to fulfill their commitments for years to come?

As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilities remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet—if the government prepared an accurate one.

But it hasn't. For years, the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for-profit and nonprofit enterprises. The U.S. Treasury "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post-retirement health benefits. But it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and other outsized and very real obligations.

As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

David Klein

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply. Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets—and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government.

These real-world impacts will be felt when currently unfunded liabilities need to be paid. In theory, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds have at least some money to pay a portion of the bills that are coming due. In actuality, the cupboard is bare: 100% of the payroll taxes for these programs were spent in the same year they were collected.

In exchange for the payroll taxes that aren't paid out in benefits to current retirees in any given year, the trust funds got nonmarketable Treasury debt. Now, as the baby boomers' promised benefits swamp the payroll-tax collections from today's workers, the government has to swap the trust funds' nonmarketable securities for marketable Treasury debt. The Treasury will then have to sell not only this debt, but far more, in order to pay the benefits as they come due.

When combined with funding the general cash deficits, these multitrillion-dollar Treasury operations will dominate the capital markets in the years ahead, particularly given China's de-emphasis of new investment in U.S. Treasurys in favor of increasing foreign direct investment, and Japan's and Europe's own sovereign-debt challenges.

When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved.

Neither the public nor policy makers will be able to fully understand and deal with these issues unless the government publishes financial statements that present the government's largest financial liabilities in accordance with well-established norms in the private sector. When the new Congress convenes in January, making the numbers clear—and establishing policies that finally address them before it is too late—should be a top order of business.

Mr. Cox, a former chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission, is president of Bingham Consulting LLC. Mr. Archer, a former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, is a senior policy adviser at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.



#1750 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2012 9:54 am
Subject: The Gold In Them Thare Hills Turned Out To Be Fool's Gold
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

The Gold In Them Thare Hills
Turned Out To Be Fool's Gold


As we all know, Governor Brown and the State of California was seeing dollar signs as a result of convincing the People to vote a tax increase in Prop 30. The California Teachers’ Association (CTA) trumpeted: "California students and working families won a clear victory today as voters clearly demonstrated their willingness to invest in our public schools and colleges..." After the celebration and the party was over, realization is just now starting to set in, i.e., a lesson in economics. It is called "the law of diminishing returns." Like a valve on a cam, once you reach TDC (Top Dead Center) the valve rises no further, but starts to recede. Illustrating with a swing set, pumping harder will get you no higher as you eventually go over the bar and drop on the other side. This is what is happening to the State of California, it is now bring in less spending revenue with the tax increase and going deeper into debt and nearer to collapse. It is like getting a raise in pay, and finding your paycheck is reduced because you have now entered a new tax bracket.

If the State of California thinks things are going South financially with this last month's financial figures, the voters only having voted the tax increase on November 6th, just wait until these next successive months, as the debt scale shall only increase exponentially. It is predictable that we shall now see many more courthouse closures, and cutbacks government benefits and in the education sector. California, as well as all states, will soon be hit with the enormous costs of Obamacare, which in and of itself, will financially bankrupt many states.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...


*   *   *


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/07/CALIFORNIA-STATE-BUDGET-GOES-OFF-THE-CLIFF

Despite Tax Increase, California State Revenues in Freefall


8 Dec 2012

California State Controller John Chiang has announced that total state revenue for the month of November 2012 fell $806.8 million, or 10.8%, below budget. 

Democrats thought they could hammer “the rich” by convincing voters to pass Proposition 30 to create the highest state income tax in the nation. But it now appears that high income earners have already “voted with their feet” by moving themselves and their businesses out of state, resulting in over $1 billion shortfall in corporate and income taxes last month and the beginning of a new financial crisis.   

Passage of Proposition 30 set off euphoria and expectations of higher spending for public employees. The California Teachers’ Association (CTA) trumpeted: "California students and working families won a clear victory today as voters clearly demonstrated their willingness to invest in our public schools and colleges and also rejected a deceptive ballot measure aimed at silencing educators, other workers and their unions.” 

State bureaucrats immediately ramped up deficit spending far beyond the state's $6 billion annual tax increase, with the Departments of Health Services and Developmental Services increasing this month’s spending by over $1 billion versus last year. The lower tax collection and higher spending drove the State’s deficit after the tax increase to $2.7 billion for the first 5 months of this fiscal year. State Controller John Chiang reported:

November's disappointing revenues stand in stark contrast to recent news that California is leading the nation in job growth, has significantly improved its cash liquidity to pay bills, and even long-distressed home values are starting to inch upward... This serves as a sobering reminder that, while the economy is expanding, it is doing so at a slow and uneven pace that will require the State to exercise care and discipline in how its fiscal affairs are managed in the coming year.

The improved “cash liquidity” Chiang referred to turns out to be $24.9 billion of debt. ....





#1751 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:41 am
Subject: Should Churched People Bear Arms?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Should Churched People
Bear Arms?

By Ron Branson
12/16/2012

I realize this is provocative title, but be that as it may, I believe this subject must be discussed. This Sunday morning, 12/16/2012, I scanned through all the morning news channels looking for someone making practical sense of the Newtown, Connecticut shooting massacre. The general consensus on every channel was essentially that Chairman Mao, Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler employed the right solution for an armed nation such as America - gun control! I heard gun control advocate after gun control advocate all pumping out their messages that we need stronger gun laws, and that only government should have guns.

Only once did I hear an interviewee make sense. He said, "In every gun massacre we have witnessed recently, there has been the lack of a guns in the hands of the victims." Here we have a man entering a theater, shooting round after round, killing everyone in sight, and not a one could defend himself, or other innocence people also in the theater.

It came down to the shooter expending all his ammunition. Just so in Newtown. The only resistance the shooter faced was a psychologist and a principle charged him bare handed only to be shot dead. With them dead, he was free to continue to kill as many six year olds as he could.

Shooter had no grievances with these little children, his plan was to only glean maximum public rage. He was successful at that, and he had no opposition. With his mission accomplished, he then decided to take his own life.

No one other than a single voice on the media I saw asked for consideration of the many lives that could have been saved if only the psychologist and the principle were armed. Like a lightening rod, anyone at that time with a gun would have drawn away fire when fired upon by another person with a gun.

In fact, even if someone had a gun containing blanks, it would have drawn away the firing at children and potentially saved some of the children's lives.


Now I have entitles this article, "Should Churched People Bear Arms?" Some may be saying, "We don't need guns in Churches." My response would be, "And likewise we don't need guns in kindergarten classes."

The objective goal at Newtown was maximum public outrage. I argue that there would be more of a motivation for shooting 27 people at your local Church on Sunday morning because they disagreed with the pastor's message the week before.

We have now have a politician shot through the head, a theater bloodied up with dead bodies, and now a class full little children waisted. Are the Churches next? I ask, what are the plans if someone entered your local Church Sunday morning armed to the teeth and started unloaded upon the congregation? Well, you might say, "Well, I am ready to go home to be with the Lord, and I am willing to die for my faith!" But such nonchalance misses the issue. This is not about your going to heaven, but you standing up for what is right, and protecting those who may not be ready to step out into eternity.

The Greatest Authority n this is God Himself. In Luke 22:35 & 36 we read, "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." In modern-day language, Christ would have said, "When you go out witnessing for the truth, if you don't have a gun, go sell whatever you have to buy yourself a gun."

Thus, Christ taught self-defense, as the sword in that day was not used for spreading butter, or for peeling potatoes. I ask, did God frown upon the action our Founding Fathers in declaring independence from the tyrant, King George, III? I say Nay! History reveals that it was the pastors who led the People in the fight for freedom in the founding of this nation. Pastors carried guns under their robes and were prepared to lead their People in the cause. Just so, I ask, would it be wrong for pastors today to keep a gun under their pulpits? I think not.


Let us contemplate the March 23, 1775 words of Patrick Henry spoken in St. John's Church in Richmond, Va., "Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Please note, that I did not entitled this article, "Should The Churched Own Arms," but "Should The Churched Bear Arms?" The word "Bear" in the Second Amendment of the Constitution means, "Carry." Truly, I have seen faithful church goers packing arms on their hips as they pasted through the doors of their Church!

I once had the opportunity of watching a movie of a small town such as Newtown, Connecticut in which the District Attorney had an appointment with his wife and their little girl at a local restaurant in town. However, when he got there, he found the partitioned off by the police as a crime scene. He, being the D.A., pushed aside the yellow partitioning and entered the scene. Within he found many bloody bodies laying around everywhere. He told the police that he had a appointment with his wife and daughter there, and asked about their affair. The police reluctantly told him that they both were shot up. The D.A. became an emotion wreck, and he had to be restrained.

What had happened was three men wearing masks over the face came in with shotguns and told everyone "Freeze." Everyone was instructed to empty everything out of their pockets, including their watches, rings and bracelets, and place them into the bag they were carrying. The D.A.'s little girl started crying frantically, and her mother raised to comfort her daughter, but this move made the trigger-happy thieves nervous, and one of the robbers cut lose with a blast from his shotgun. Then spontaneously the rest of the thieves started shooting. The result was a bloody massacre, with his wife and child dead.

After the passing of time, the D.A. was able to make an emotional recovery. Thereafter, he envisioned the scene if everyone in the restaurant was carrying a gun. The film reenacted the scent as envisioned by the District Attorney, in which these same three armed masked men entered the restaurant and shouted, "Everyone freeze." With you then heard was several gun hammers being pulled back with the robbers realizing they were surrounded by an armed public, and they dropped their weapons to the floor with no one hurt.

After this fashion, let us recreate the scene in Newtown, CT. of a gunman entering the building via a window and fired off twelve rounds of ammunition, killing four children. But instead of everyone being without arms, the
psychologist and the principle quickly drew their guns, and wounding the shooter, and averted his shooting and killing a total of 20 school children and seven adults, including the psychologist and the principle.

The obvious point being, the only real and positive way to stopped crazed individuals shooting guns is to equal the playing field, i.e., shoot back! In every real case of the mass shootings we know about, a gun doubtless would have mitigated the scene. Then, of course, the national media would have to then search for a spin to place on the scene, for we just can not have citizens with guns blowing away individuals, even if they be criminals in the act. After all, we have to learn to be kind and loving, and reason with armed criminals while they are blowing away innocent citizens.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...
www.jail4judges.org







#1752 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:44 am
Subject: Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocate Deanne Feinstein
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


Hypocrisy of Gun Control
Advocate Dianne Feinstein

By Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...




According to the testimony of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, out of fear for her life, she carries a concealed weapon, and expresses a willingness to take down anyone who threatens her.

Thus, relative to the Newtown, Ct. shooting scene, had Dianne been present within that school at the time, she would have pulled her gun and fired back at the assailant as a matter of life and death.

To make sense of Senator Dianne Feinstein's position, she thus believes that she has a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and to use it against anyone whom she perceives might threaten her, but she does not believe the People have that same right.

Her expressed justification for her stated belief is that the world has become much more violent with the People having the same right she has.

Therefore, she is proposing legislation cutting off access to what she believes are dangerous guns in the hands of People. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vQMwpbSjC1A



*   *   *

Interesting is the change of terms within the liberal media in the furtherance of gun control. Weapons in the hands of the People that are called "Assault Rifles," are called "Tactical Weapons" in the hands of the government. It just depends upon whose hands the guns are in. Try switching these titles and their applications, and see how the media is manipulating the news, and control of the People.

I suppose that "Two irons, two irons, the British are coming," can be transposed into, "The SWAT Teams are coming with Tactical Weapons, and the revoltees are resisting with their Musket Assault Rifles." Then the news reports, "We just have to outlaw those Muskets, because they are dangerous weapons that must be taken off the streets."





#1753 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:21 pm
Subject: New South Carolina Bill Provides For Armed School Teachers
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/sc-bill-takes-aim-to-arm-public-school-employees-with-guns/


SC Bill Takes Aim To Arm Public School Employees With Guns

Years ago Texas began arming its teachers. Now more states are seeing it as a viable, and I might add, rational and logical option to letting kids and teachers simply be herded up and made victims of in a place where there is supposed to be learning. Now, my home State of South Carolina is following that lead with a new bill that was introduced in the South Carolina House of Representatives which takes aim at arming public school employees on campuses throughout the state.

Rep. Phillip D. Lowe (SC District 60), a father of three and member of the National Rifle Association, wants to amend South Carolina’s code by adding a section “to provide a public school employee who has a concealed weapons permit may possess a firearm on the premises of his employer.”

According to the bill, Article 5, Chapter 1, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding the following:

(1) keeps the firearm on his person at all times while on the premises;

(2) keeps the weapon concealed when not in use;

(3) uses only frangible bullets in an effort to avoid ricochets;

(4) provides written notification of his intent to carry the firearm to the principal of the school where the weapon will be carried;

(5) successfully completes and biennially renews certification as a precision marksman by SLED; and

(6) has no history of violence or unmanaged anger documented by his employer.

(B) A school board may only deny an employee of his ability to carry a firearm on school property under this section upon a finding of just cause.

(C) An employee who violates a provision of this section may not be permitted to carry any firearm on public school property for five years from the date of the violation, and SLED shall revoke his concealed weapons permit and may not terminate this revocation or issue a new permit to him for a period of five years following the date of revocation.

(D) For the purposes of this section:

(1) ‘Frangible bullet’ means a bullet designed to disintegrate into tiny particles upon impact to minimize their penetration for reasons of range safety to limit environmental impact, or to limit the danger behind the intended target.

(2) ‘Public school employee’ means a person employed by a school district, as defined in Section 59-1-160, or a public institution of higher learning, as defined in Section 59-103-5.”

Additionally Section 16-23-420(a) of the 1976 Code is to be amended to read:

“(A) It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property except as provided in Section 59-1-490 for public school employees or as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this subsection related to any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, do not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.”

While this is not a full riddance of the “Gun Free Zone” policies, notice, as far as more big government is concerned, it is completely unnecessary except to remove restraining laws. People are already getting concealed weapons permits, which frankly I don’t think are necessary according to the Second Amendment, but at least this bill is a step in the right direction. Additionally, I think it will be in the best interest of the teachers, students and schools to have this in place.

On a personal note, I would rather parents simply bring their children home and teach them there and let the state sponsored public schools wither away.



#1754 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:36 pm
Subject: * * * Gun Dispute Pits Judge vs. Judges * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal

Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law


Los Angeles, California                                        December 24, 2012


The Battle Lines are Drawn:  J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power 

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution



http://www.startribune.com/local/north/184571721.html?page=1&c=y

Gun dispute pits judge vs. judge

  • Article by: DAVID CHANEN , Star Tribune
  • Updated: December 22, 2012 - 10:18 PM

Anoka's John Dehen granted himself the right to carry arms, but a chief judge said no. The law is murky on whose order should stand.

A behind-the-scenes gun rights battle is pitting one judge against another who wants to protect himself with a weapon in his Anoka County courthouse.

In a bold move, John Dehen issued an order granting himself permission to bring a concealed weapon into any of his district's courthouses, a direct violation of a 2003 court order banning guns. John Hoffman, the district's chief judge, quickly trumped him with an order to re-enforce the ban.

But it didn't stop there. Dehen reissued his order, claiming Hoffman didn't have the authority to quash his order. Dehen said last week he had believed the orders would remain confidential.

Both judges' orders were forwarded to court administration, but aren't public because they haven't been filed. The Star Tribune has obtained copies of the orders.

"I believe judges should be able to make their own personal choice regarding their own security and safety in the courtroom, coming to and from the courtroom and in the courthouse," Dehen said. "As you may guess, we encounter dangerous people on a regular basis."

Two other Minnesota judges have asked to carry a gun, Dehen said, though he declined to give names. This wouldn't be an issue in Wisconsin and in at least 15 other states that allow judges to bring weapons into a courthouse.

Dehen said he isn't armed on the job and is contemplating his next move. But advocates and detractors of concealed-weapon laws nationwide aren't hesitating to weigh in on the debate. Meanwhile, Hoffman sought guidance from legal counsel employed by the state's Supreme Court Administration.

"In my view, his order is null and void and had no legal effect," Hoffman said.

Dehen, who has been on the bench for two years, said he never intended "to make this issue about me" when he first approached Hoffman in August to inquire about carrying a gun. Hoffman told him it was prohibited. Other than armed bailiffs in courtrooms, the only firearms allowed inside a courtroom are a gun submitted as evidence in a trial and weapons carried by a police officer or military personnel performing official duties. The only entry into the courthouse has a metal detector and screening equipment.

Hoffman later learned Dehen had safety concerns about a litigant from a divorce and child custody case. The Anoka County Sheriff's Office strongly advised him against bringing a gun into the courthouse, and Dehen assured everyone he wouldn't violate the ban.

Yet in September, Dehen issued an order that gave him the power to carry a gun "on his person." Dehen wrote that he wanted the order to be confidential, placed in a sealed envelope and retained by the county's court administrator.

A month later, the two judges met "to make sure we understood the ground rules" of introducing a gun into the courthouse and confirming Dehen wouldn't come to work armed without telling Hoffman. But Dehen's second order stated his initial order "supersedes and will continue to supersede" any judge's attempt to limit his possession of a firearm in the courthouse.

Murky legal territory

Joe Olson, a law professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, questioned whether a chief judge has more authority than the rest of the judges. "They are in a really murky area here," Olson said. "I don't believe there is an agreement by all the judges in the district that they give up power to the chief judge."

Hoffman said the chief judge by law, custom and history is invested with powers that are administrative in nature, but are over and above those set out statutorily and constitutionally for judges who serve on the District Court bench.

It was Olson's work back in 2003 that led to the ban Dehen is now fighting. Olson, president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, was a key contributor to the state law that made it easier for Minnesotans to get permits to carry handguns in public. The law appeared to prohibit local governments from restricting handgun possession in public buildings, though schools were a major exception.

Many courthouses are older, and it's difficult to have a single and secure point of entry. In Hoffman's district, only Isanti County doesn't have a metal detector or security guards at the entry. If a judge from that county asked to bring a weapon, Hoffman said he might have a different view than the situation involving Dehen.

Most judges receive threats, but it's rare that they are physically harmed. In March, a man stabbed a judge and shot a sheriff's deputy with her own gun in a courthouse struggle in Washington. In 2006, a former Reno pawn shop owner shot a judge handling his bitter divorce through a window. The previous year, a judge was shot to death in Atlanta.

Last year, Wisconsin became the latest state to allow judges to carry a weapon in the courthouse. Marinette County Circuit Court Judge Tim Duket, who retired in January and has a conceal-and-carry permit, confirmed with the state Supreme Court's Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee that he wouldn't face discipline if he carried a gun.

"I don't think a judge would make it public if they were carrying a gun," he said. Judges in New York must apply with the police department and offer a "substantial" reason if they want to have a gun, said Dennis Quirk, president of the New York State Court Officers Association, a union with more than 3,500 officers that handle security for all of the state's courthouses. The officers receive six months of training, including courses on hand-to-hand strategy to take down a person with a gun, he said.

Prosecutors can be armed

"If a judge pulled out a gun and starting shooting in a courtroom, the chances of an innocent person getting hit [are] enormous," he said.

Earlier this year, Gov. Mark Dayton signed a bill allowing prosecutors to carry a concealed weapon if they receive approval from their county attorney and a judge. Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, one of the legislators who proposed the law, wants judges to have the same choice. He said Hoffman's ruling was a "slap in the face" to Dehen.

"How could you not trust a person who makes decisions that impact people's lives to handle a decision to use a gun?" Cornish said. "This whole thing is getting kind of comical."

David Chanen • 612-673-4465


J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)   www.jail4judges.org 

Declaration of Independence "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and
our sacred honor."

Ron Branson
P.O. Box 207,
North Hollywood
, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of pretended legislation.  - Declaration of Independence

 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."  - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."
   -- Henry David Thoreau                     ><)))'>




#1755 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:01 pm
Subject: She Survived Hitler & Wants To Warn America
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

J.A.I.L. News Journal

Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law


Los Angeles, California                                        December 26, 2012


The Battle Lines are Drawn:  J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power 

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution


She Survived Hitler &
Wants To Warn America

Kitty Werthmann

Kitty Werthmann survived Hitler

“What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.

“I am a witness to history. 

“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.

Adolph Hitler

“We voted him in.”

If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.

“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls.

She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers.

“Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”

No so.


Hitler is welcomed to Austria

“In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.

“My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’

“We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933.” she recalls. “We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.

Austrian girls welcome Hitler

“Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone in Germany was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.

“Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

“We were overjoyed,” remembers Kitty, “and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

Read more at BeliefNet Blog here:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html#ixzz2Fzr5YTU1



J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)   www.jail4judges.org 

Declaration of Independence  "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and
our sacred honor."

Ron Branson
P.O. Box 207,
North Hollywood
, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

Group sign on:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of pretended legislation.  - Declaration of Independence

 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."  - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."
   -- Henry David Thoreau                     ><)))'>




#1756 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:44 am
Subject: Our Founding Fathers On Gun Control
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


Our Founding Fathers On Gun Control

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."  We are told that the People in L.A. are standing in line to give up their guns to the government. However, let it be known that it is documented that the government has staged fake Drug Busts before for media consumption.

In other words, the government believes it is justifiable to lie to the People for their own good. Los Angeles Mayor
Antonio Villaraigosa, contrary to our Founding Fathers in our Declaration of Independence, says, "L.A. can never hove too many police officers." I admonish those reading the below report of the People of Los Angeles standing in line to give up their arms, be viewed with a healthy skepticism of government propaganda.


Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:56 am (PST) . Posted by:

"balerion the black dread" sxgnzls


LA's Gun Buyback Program Is a Massive Success
Reuters


Adam Clark Estes 2,917 Views Dec 26, 2012

People lined up around the block in Los Angeles on Wednesday, some waiting hours to exchange their unwanted guns for grocery store gift cards as the city tries to get the weapons off the street. By lunchtime, they'd already collected more than the 1,673 guns that were exchanged last year, and the officials running the event had to get more gift cards. One guy showed up with 22 pistols in his trunk. The event usually takes place on Mother's Day, but Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa moved it up to the day after Christmas following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. "I'm bringing in a 9-millimeter handgun because I want to get it out of the house because I have teenage children," one woman told The Los Angeles Times. "I would hate for them to do what that guy in Connecticut did."

These type of events have been happening all over the country since the Sandy Hood shooting. Each one is different, but generally, firearms fetch between $50 and $100. In Los Angeles, they were offering up to $200 for assault rifles. It's not really about the money, though. As Villaraigosa explained ahead of his city's buyback program, it's also about taking action. "I think everybody was so traumatized," he said. "People said, 'I don't wait on the Congress, I'm tired of the endless debates about responsible gun control legislation, I want to do my part." As it were, one of the first guns collected at Wednesday was a Bushmaster XM-15, the same assault rifle that Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook. Inevitably, though, as some people across the country were getting rid of their guns, plenty of others were getting brand new ones for Christmas.



So, let us consider the admonitions of our Founding Fathers


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason (1788)




"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson  Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."



"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams - August 20, 1789



"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington



"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Richard Henry Lee -  American Statesman, 1788


"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Patrick Henry


"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Patrick Henry



"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke  -  1784






#1757 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:57 am
Subject: * * * Government Cries Uncle Over The Run On Gun Sales * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law


Los Angeles, California                                        January 16, 2013


The Battle Lines are Drawn:  J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution



Government Cries Uncle
Over The Run On Gun Sales

By Ron Branson

All the talk about gun control and taking in the guns from Americans has had an unintended negative result for government. Gun sales have gone over the top with gun sales going up four times over. People are standing in lines at gun shops buying everything they can, and gun manufactures cannot keep up with the enormous demand.

Further, membership with the N.R.A has risen immensely at a said rate of 8,000 new members people per day. Government now realizes that they have lit a fire keg, and wondering how to stop it.

Those who support the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, also support the First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Ironically, while here it is not Congress that is seeing to stifle Freedom of Press, but the Press itself. I refer to a national news article regarding abounding gun sales telling the story and they have appended to the bottom these words; "Copyright 2013  The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."  In other words, "They will not allow us to redistribute this truth to the public."

Now while I believe the assertion that the Associated Press News sources can prevent us getting the word out to the public in that such position is Constitutionally infirm, it is not my intent to here challenge such their position, but to show their hypocrisy. I am not "selling," or seeking to make a profit off their newspaper, nor stealing their work by not giving them recognized credit, but to freely get the word out to the public. I wonder what the motive of the establishment media is. Unfortunately, the same people wishing to collect all the guns are the same ones that control the media. I don't know about you, but that seems to me to be lopsided. Where are the People's interests represented? Certainly not in the politicians calling for gun control, nor in the media propagating their propaganda. Maybe we should expand this subject of "control" to include "Media Control," but that would be too revealing as to what they are really after.

Okay, so now we have the top government officials calling for a moratorium on gun sales, which message they are sending to all gun stores. This they say is necessary while Congress debates whether Americans should be allowed to own guns. But if you get the jest of what they are saying, government is asking all gun manufacturers and businesses to quite selling guns at a time when gun sales has never been greater.

Such request defies common sense, but what are we to expect out of government? Would an auto manufacturer quit building automobiles while Congress debates their rise in sales. Government lit the fuse on this keg, we didn't. Perhaps we own government a debt of gratitude for vastly improving the necessary need for a well armed society, as per the Second Amendment.

What the government has done is equivalent to hacking at hydras, i.e., every hack, grows independently into that which they seek to prevent. Right now, as we speak, the president has signed new executive orders while People who never gave a thought to manufacturing guns are getting involved in this new found gun frenzy. Government is seeking frantically to put the genie back in the bottle, for, as it is said, it is easy to let the cat out of the bag, getting it back in is another story.

Oh, that I could republish what the media is saying, but they just do not want me to do that. So I ask, why publish truth which you do not want the public to know about? Are they afraid that I will not give them the credit, or that I am going to carry bags of cash to the bank of this news that the government is crying uncle?

Government is admitting that gun sales is way up since the alleged December mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The mass media of this event just did not produce the result intended.

Now why do I use the word "alleged." It is because my research has revealed more holes within the official story than found in swiss cheese. I expect to soon seen a full-featured movie coming forth that will astound this nation with revelations not being revealed to you by the mass media.

You might be asking yourself, "What would motivate government to fake a fantastic publicity stunt if certain "facts" within the official media reports will not stand up to scrutiny? We shall leave that question to another discussion. What we are dealing with here is the government's cry for a moratorium on gun sales. "People, people, please quit buying gun, and businesses quit selling guns. Give us time to legislate and pass new laws. Give us time to determine whether Americans should be armed, and then we will tell you what we mandate of you."

Congress is afraid of "Closing the gate after all the horses have left." Indeed, government is saying that it won't help their cause if more guns are out there in circulation due to a run on guns. Their words, not mine.

Government is now out front of a stampede seeking to call off the stampede. This is like trying to stop a run on the bank as confidence in the banking system wains, and everyone seeks to get their money out of the bank, calling for a moratorium upon withdrawals.

It's time government be stampeded as the People run right over them in a made dash to buy their guns and arm themselves from a tyrannical government.


"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."     Declaration of Independence
 
*  *  *

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)   www.jail4judges.org

Declaration of Independence  "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Ron Branson
P.O. Box 207,
North Hollywood, CA 91603
VictoryUSA@...

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

Group sign on:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of pretended legislation.  - Declaration of Independence
 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."  - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."   -- Henry David Thoreau                     ><)))'>


#1758 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:13 pm
Subject: The Mad Dash To Purchase Arms
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
#1759 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:19 am
Subject: * * * America Is Sworn To Be Overthrown By Conquest, or Consent
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law


Los Angeles, California                                        January 25, 2013


The Battle Lines are Drawn:  J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution


America Is Sworn To Be Overthrown

By Conquest, or Consent!

By Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not.  The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, testifying under oath before U.S. Senate.

As independent thinkers are beginning to awaken as to what is transpiring in American, those who have long sought the enslavement this country by deceit are leaning more toward the need to overthrow this nation by means of physical force, rather than deceit. Does the name of Zbigniew Brzesinski ring any bells? He has come to us down through presidential administration after presidential administration as the unseen adviser of all world events. With his influence upon world events, let us listen to what he has to say.   -Ron

*   *   * 

The Old Thinker News

The Future Is Being Written Right Now

January 26, 2013

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2010/07/the-future-is-being-written-right-now/



Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control...

Global Political Awakening

Global governance has been a long term goal of elites for decades. However, a global political awakening is taking place that is proving to be a major stumbling block under the feet of the world’s elite. During a recent Council on Foreign Relations meeting in Montreal, Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that, “Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring,” stating that a fractured elite “…makes it a much more difficult context for any major power, including currently the leading world power, the United States.”

In an earlier speech in 2009, Brzezinski elaborated further, saying, “…in early times, it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control….”

*   *   *

Disclaimer: The below link to a news report is provided only for your consideration. Please exercise your own individual discernment and judgment as to its value and its credibility.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kzT6X3_Bg9o#!

- Ron Branson



J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)   www.jail4judges.org


Declaration of Independence  "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Ron Branson
P.O. Box 207,
North Hollywood, CA 91603
VictoryUSA@...

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

Group sign on:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of pretended legislation.  - Declaration of Independence
 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."  - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."   -- Henry David Thoreau                     ><)))'>


Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1760 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 1:56 am
Subject: Where Are We Now? 8 min Video
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 



     Where Are We Now, And Where Are We Headed? 
                                   
Watch 8 min. video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ywzYmWqMvTk#!
Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1761 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 2:38 am
Subject: Testimony of 911 Police Dispatcher to Connecticut Legislature
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


Testimony of 911 Police Dispatcher
To Connecticut Legislature



Police Dispatcher, Matthew Erff, addresses the Connecticut Legislature on the dire need, based upon real life experiences in Connecticut, for the public to be armed pursuant to the Second Amendment.

He further has the endorsement of the Hartford, Connecticut Police Department.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPQZYVyjFs0

He provides evidence that a gun in hand is better than two cops on the way.

Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. 4 Judges Commander-In-Chief
P.O. Box 207
North Hollywood, CA. 91603
www.jail4judges.org


Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1762 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:00 pm
Subject: * * * America Must Be Disarmed For Its Own Good! * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law


Los Angeles, California                                        February 10, 2013


The Battle Lines are Drawn:  J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution


America Must Be Disarmed
For Its Own Good!


A man born outside the U.S., but now a U.S. citizen by choice, knows more about our Constitution than most Americans although he is unable to speak clear English, but nevertheless drives home a very forceful point to the Connecticut Legislators considering passing unconstitutional gun measures as a knee-jerk result of the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZo4hbGJjVI


As to Sandy Hook Elementary School, a woman in "Veteran's Today Magazine" raises questions by footage documentation as to whether Sandy Hook Elementary School was a legitimate functioning operational school prior to December 14th, 2012, or just a chosen site for a government emergency training exercise.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/30/the-nexus-of-tyranny-the-strategy-behind-tucson-aurora-and-sandy-hook/

Below is actual police footage and the official media story put out for America to believe, complete with multiple contradictions that no official wishes to explain, or make sense of;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwIvy1GXRU


J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)   www.jail4judges.org

Declaration of Independence  "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Ron Branson
P.O. Box 207,
North Hollywood, CA 91603

VictoryUSA@...

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

Group sign on:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.  - Declaration of Independence
 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."  - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."   -- Henry David Thoreau                     ><)))'>



 
Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1763 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:51 pm
Subject: * * * Give Em' The Truth Anyway! * * * Ron Branson
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law


Los Angeles, California                                        February 23, 2013


The Battle Lines are Drawn:  J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution



Give Em' The Truth Anyway!
By Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief

On February 21st, I sent out a message entitled, "Ron Branson - The Egotistical Idiot!" Therein, I concluded with the words, Whatever happened to the saying, "We have but only begun to fight?" Okay, okay, I shall go back to my computer and see how Ron Branson's suggestion is pulled apart and another plan instituted in its place as has been practiced for the last sixteen years.

This paragraph is referring to the fact that no matter how Truth is presented, some will always come forth with an alternative and oppose it. "No, No, we cannot allow the unadulterated Truth to reach the eyes of the People, try this instead." I was well on point, as sure enough I was presented an alternative to JAIL4Judges, namely, "If I were you, I'd start making a serious push to end secret vote counting, and restore counting of paper ballots in public at the precinct level." In other words, I should give up on the passage of Judicial Accountability Initiative Law until we get honest voting!

It is this position I wish to tackle in this J.A.I.L. News Journal. This argument is referred to as, "The chicken, or the egg, which came first?" question. The answer to this question is simple! It is the "chicken,"  ... that is if the Truth means anything to you. Genesis 1:21, & 22, "And God created ... every winged fowl after his kind: ...  And God blessed them, saying, ... let fowl multiply in the earth." In other words, God did not directly create eggs, but chickens, and commissioned them to lay eggs!

First, I present the argument made by Henry Morgan of Florida that I should give up JAIL4Judges until after justice is obtained within the voting system.




Hey Ron,
 
It should be obvious.....even to the most obtuse.....that until we put an end to counting votes in secret.....nothing else matters (except, possibly, buying more guns, ammo and organizing militias). "Those who cast the votes decide nothing.  Those who count the votes decide everything."     ~~~ Josef Stalin
 
After that.....I'd say J4J (JAIL4JUDGES, judicial accountability,  http://www.jail4judges.org/  should be at the top of the priority list.
 
The 2006 fiasco in SD [South Dakota] could not have been designed or carried out more expertly by our enemies...with the intention of burying J4J forever. I told you then that your constant "proselytizing overtones"  were inappropriate, and turning people off......but you persisted.  
 
I told Bill Stegmeier then....that getting on the ballot was the easy part....that he'd need at least 1 million in the bank for tv & radio ads during the campaign....before he started......and a stable of creative, experienced video / PR people who could field the enemy PR, and produce powerful rebuttal ads.....on the fly......overnight!   He said he had it covered.  He didn't have it covered.  He was politically inept......and totally blew the interview with the state ballot committee.
 
National J4J was in disarray.....and even totally off-line at critical periods.....and the various state chapters were not adequately organized and marshalled to pull out all the stops to support the SD initiative.  Let's be honest, Ron. It was.......in a word........a totally counterproductive, ill planned clusterfuck that seriously woke up the enemy.......
set JAIL back at least 10 years.......and made it 10 times more difficult.....to mount another attempt. But what the hell......at least you and Steg got some political experience.
 
Meanwhile, If I were you,  I'd start making a serious push to end secret vote counting,
and restore counting of paper ballots in public at the precinct level. After that is accomplished......maybe JAIL (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)  will have another chance. 
 
Jake
henrymorgan@...   
 
 
Here, I would like to refute the idea that we should give up on the principle fight of Judicial Accountability until ......?  In April of 1995, after many years of experience within the courts going all the way back to 1981, I besought the Lord out of frustration about what we must do, having learned the lesson that "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results." Albert Einstein. The Lord spoke to me at that time and told me to set my hands to the keyboard, and for the next two days I was totally engrossed in the initial version of http://www.jail4judges.org/State_Chapters/ca/CA_Initiative.html. When I completed what the Lord gave to me, I swung around from the keyboard at my back, and looked up, stating, "Lord, I know you have commissioned me to write this, but what am I going to do with it? I have neither money nor name recognition." The Lord spoke very definitely to me as if verbally and said, "Ron, leave that to Me!" At that time I did not understand the impact of those five words, but a couple years thereafter I leaned what His words meant. He was saying, I am going to make your enemies spend their fortunes making this known across this nation by opposing this.

Now I realize that not everyone reading this will grasp what I just said, but nevertheless, it is the Truth! God's Truth! Such commission is not based upon how People receive it, but rather upon the presentation of Truth, whether they will hear or not! "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!"

I am sent as was Ezekiel, "For they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted. Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy forehead strong against their foreheads. As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house." Ezekiel 33:7 - 9. God says,
"Give Em' The Truth Anyway!"

But what if they refuse to hear?
"Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" But what if they outspend us ten thousand to one? "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" But what if we do not have the media on our side? "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" What if they play with, and falsify the voting process? "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" What if they twist our words and lie about what we are saying? "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32. The Truth can never be defeated, never in a thousand years! Hammering at them with the Truth shall drive them insane! Never, never, never give up, but "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7. "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!"

But shouldn't we first leave the focal cause and concentrate on honesty in voting? No, No, No, never. To do so is to abandon our first cause, the Truth! There was voter fraud going on before the existence of JAIL4Judges. There has arisen organization after organization to affront such voter fraud. Over the sixteen years since the founding of JAIL4Judges, we have only witnessed the expansion of voter fraud. Voter fraud has only gotten worse. Our enemy is not moved at the rise of opposition to their voter fraud, They laugh at us. Even today, there are masses of People who allege that out current president was elected only by voter fraud. So how is that fight coming along?

The truth of the matter is that if we were to focus merely upon voter fraud, we will still have voter fraud for the unforeseen future of time to come. The only way we are going to send our enemies running with their tails between their legs is through Judicial Accountability. Believe me when I say this, that the passage of JAIL4Judges in a single state, will bring the fear of God into their hearts and will terrorize them, and miracles will then begin to happen. Trust me. 


The ramification of the passage of JAIL4Judges is beyond the comprehension of all but the most astute. No matter what the opposition may offer, we must "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" If at first we fail, we must "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" If after we try and try again, and each time we fail, we must "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" We must give them the Truth until the last principled person is left standing. We must give them the Truth until Hell freezes over. No matter what, "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!" Their lies shall utterly fail, and all of you have God's promise on that! "I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found." Psalm 37:36.

Perhaps most of us are familiar with the Hollywood movie "Saving Private Ryan." In the last scene Tom Hanks is wound, laying along the side of the way at the end of the bridge as an enemy tank is approaching him. He draws our his pistol and with a last ditch effort to defeat the enemy, he fires at the approaching tank. As the tank gets nearer to him, one would think that they are going to witness the final demise of Tom Hank. But just then the tank explodes into a massive ball of flames from a bomb dropped from a plane that arrives out of nowhere, and the enemy is defeated.

Just so, we must "Give Em' The Truth Anyway!"


Ron Branson
The Egotistical Idiot!



Gentlemen, gentlemen, dare I step in here to interject my 2 cents worth? Often I stand on the sidelines to observe the controversies. I admit to my hesitancy to jumping in rapidly, inasmuch as I realize that one can interpret my words a self-serving and boastful, being the author of JAIL4Judges. So right at the outset, I readily admit to my predicament. There is an old saying, "It is hard to be humble when you know as much as I do." But my predicament is, how do I speak the Truth without somehow appealing to my own accomplishments and knowledge? I do know know how to do that, so I will just have to bear the scorn of those who charge that Branson is just patting himself on the back. So be it. I will just have to accept that some will receive the Truth, and some will not! So now I face the charge, "What is Truth?" And "Does Truth rest with Ron Branson?"

Gentlemen, we do not need any, or more "Rush Limbaughs." Not to put down Rush, as he does say many good things. Basically, I see him as a marvelous entertainer with some good points, however, I cannot picture Rush really getting to the warfare dealing blows at the heart of the problem. Will he take on judicial immunity? Will he take on the overthrow of the Federal Reserve Banking system? I really doubt it. These subjects are just too close to home, outside the controversial circles of politics.

Yes, Arnie is quite right. The system is terrified at the very thought of the passage of judicial accountability as proposed by JAIL4Judges, and our opposition will spend unlimited funds to ditch the subject. But my qualm with the patriot community is, does this give us an excuse to turn from the front line and position our cross hairs at a less controversial target that will not generate so much resistance? I say Nay! The patriots have gone AWOL from the front line. JAIL4Judges in South Dakota revealed for the doubters where the front line is, i.e., the Achelies Heel of our enemies, if you will.

I guarantee you that hitting the bulls eye of the target is going to generate the maximum resistance. Our objective cannot be to look for less resistance. We cannot be content with a less serious front line. True, they are going to pull out their big guns, and fire their big artillery backed by millions of dollars. Wake up, patriots,. we destroy the Federal Reserve with their Federal Reserve Notes! Lots and lots of them. But you say, "We haven't got millions of Federal Reserve Notes like they have." Based upon this conclusion, shall we just throw down our guns and run the other way? Shall we just cash in our chips and surrender, or shall we not put on a fierce fight for Truth at any cost? It amazes me how many Federal Reserve Notes the patriot community is spending, and will spend, on other things that avoid the real frontline issue.

I was called to be a speaker at a major patriot seminar. I was very concerned about what I needed to say, which would have cut clear across all the other patriot speaker's messages if what we needed to do. I was tempted to say, "With all the money that has been spent on sponsoring this seminar, we could have launched a fearful blow to our enemies that they will never forget, but I resisted the temptation and tried not to discount everyone elses message. I am known by patriot leaders throughout this nation. I don't wish to alienate them. But I know a lot of them think I am the engine on a single track. To this charge, I plead guilty. But at least I perceive that I am on the right track to victory to which the system fears most of all.

I have been at this front line issue now for sixteen years and have never received a salary for my labor. I say this not that I should be bountifully reimbursed, God knows, but to express the absence of essential priorities!

Let me put a good word in here for Bill Stegmeirer. He determined that he wished to invest his money in a effort to provide a better future for his children. He coughed up out of his own personal funds $140,000 to place JAIL4Judges on the ballot. To my knowledge, he had no real serious supporters in his effort other than one multi-millionaire who gratefully contributed $6,000. This multi-millionaire said, "If you win, I have got a lot more money for you." I know that this millionaire previously contributed just shy of a million dollars in a single election just to try to get his man elected as governor. He failed in his effort. Did he quit? No! I simply think he has lessor priorities, but it was his money to invest!

Did we win in South Dakota? In the conventional evaluation, no, we did not win. But Bill revealed how vulnerable the system really is. The system relied on the hope no one would ever come forward with the Federal Reserve Notes to provide that JAIL4Judges would ever see the light of day. They were wrong. My point is that just one man rocked this nation, and threw fear into the hearts of the controlling system. He managed to gender 105 State Legislators of both Democrats and Republicans, the entire judicial system of South Dakota, the governor, and the State Attorney General, as well as the Cities and the Counties of his State to stand up and take note of his accomplishments, causing them to willfully violate their own State Constitution by turning the entire State Capital into a campaign office, which was not only a violation of their Constitution, but also a criminal violation of their own statutes, which imposed a criminal jail sentence for those found guilty. The problem way, since the entire State was involve in this criminal violation, there was no one innocent, and outside the conspiracy,  to prosecute the criminals, which was all of them!

Not only was the government guilty of violating their own criminal statutes, but they welcome into the pool the bankers, the oil companies, and the insurance industry. Bill caused an all out warm, more or less, single-handedly. Just imagine if he had the help and aid of the patriot community behind him? Would we have won? Perhaps not, but we sure could have sent a clear and open message. Instead, we sent a clear message that you dare not mess with the system!

No war is won with the dropping of the first bomb. It takes repeated endurance, again and again and again! We only have to take one state, and we have won our country. Our opponents have to make sure we can never win anywhere, as they know it will spell their doom!

Now I wish to address the prospects of winning since the question is raised below,
"So, suppose we win and have in place the Pure People's Bureaucracy. Who will be in charge of currency, coinage, and responsibility for payment?"  Should we win, we still will not be on easy street! Even after a win, we are going to experience the repercussions of years and years of fraud. There will be a great ball of knarreled yarn to unravel. As to the question, "Who will be in charge of currency," I propose we follow the dictates of our Constitution, namely, that Congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof," which currently is 412.5 grains of silver, troy weight pursuant to the U.S. Coinage Act of 1792.

How marvelous that I, Ron Branson, have thought of just enforcing our existing Constitution! Whatever happened to the saying, "We have but only begun to fight?" Okay, okay, I shall go back to my computer and see how Ron Branson's suggestion is pulled apart and another plan instituted in its place as has been practiced for the last sixteen years. What does Ron Branson know, anyway about saving our country. He is just an egotistic idiot!

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...





-------- Original Message --------
So, you need an articulate spokesperson, such as Rush Limbaugh. 
Have you spoken on the air with Limbaugh?  Might that not be the best way to teach the masses in a hurry?
Would he let you complete your thoughts?
What about inviting him to be a guest.  Keith and Ron and you, Arnie, could interview him and discover how much he knows, filling in some details along the way.
Maybe something along those lines would be most efficient in moving things along and finding enough people to do all the work.  Don't forget Paul Guthrie and Paul Vallely.  So, you have some great guests (Terry Lakin ... ), all of whose names I can not list.  But you could even hold roundtable discussions and have other hosts guest-host events; Sean Hannity comes to mind.
 
So, suppose we win and have in place the Pure People's Bureaucracy. 
Who will be in charge of currency, coinage, and responsibility for payment?  How shall we come to grips with our debts, for instance those to China?  And how shall we prevent the new order from quickly becoming just as corrupt as the last?  How do we re-order the world's society, and who put me in charge of all this, anyway?  Oh, yeah, the Founding Fathers.  So, you're in charge, I'm in charge, and all responsible U.S. Citizens are in charge, so nobody's in charge, because everybody else will do it, that's what we're paying them to do.  What, they are not doing our business?  Fire them!  Now what?

Just some thoughts.

              -Steve-

          s@...

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)   www.jail4judges.org
Declaration of Independence  "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Ron Branson
P.O. Box 207,
North Hollywood, CA 91603

VictoryUSA@...

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

Group sign on:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.  - Declaration of Independence
 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."  - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."   -- Henry David Thoreau                     ><)))'>

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1764 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 1:43 am
Subject: How SHOULD our borders be being protected against illegal immigration?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

How SHOULD our borders be being protected
against illegal immigration?

Steve -  s@...

Hello, Steven. You have asked a good question. I am going to answer your concern, as every minister should, from a Biblical perspective. It is true that the Constitution grants limited powers to Congress concerning the United States, and all laws respecting it must be initiated by Congress. We are to respect those powers as believers as well as non believers.

However, while Congress has prescribed limited powers as delineated within our Constitution, and everyone situated within these United States are subject to those laws, whether an immigrant or native born. However, when it comes to the superior laws among nations, it is God Himself that has prescribed His mandate as prescribed within the Word of God. God recognizes, and has even ordained national borders, which begin back in Genesis chapter eleven with the fall of the Tower of Babel.

Notwithstanding these God-ordained borders, God has reserved to Himself the minimum required moral conduct that is to be observed within all borders throughout His creation. He allows us to make up our own laws, but those laws must be uniformly enforced throughout those borders as to all people within those prescribed borders. If the there are laws prescribed for the occupants therein, God mandated that those laws shall be enforced uniformly. If a man commits a crime, he shall be punished according to the law, whether immigrant or native born. But God strictly forbids the legislating of a crime strictly for being present within any nation's borders. That is power God has reserved strictly and solely to Himself. Thus, if Congress, or the Constitution, presumes to take on that power, it defies God, and that nation will certainly suffer the judgment of God as prescribed in His Higher Law, that is, the Word of God. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Romans 13:1 & 2.

Allow me to refer you, and everyone reading this, to some principles as set forth from the Higher Law, the Word of God, which is even recognized by Constitutional principles. 
State's Constitutions, such as California, establishes right in its very first issue, "All People are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights." Article I, Section 1. Inalienable Rights are not acquired by statute, or by laws passed by the Legislature, but by nature. Such position is confirmed by our Declaration of Independence, which we unreservedly honor every year on the 4th of July, "We hold these truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." From whence derive we such inalienable rights? Yes, only from our Creator! And yes, the Creator is even capitalized in our Declaration of Independence which was unanimously approved by all of Congress collectively, without one descent.

Now let's consider the Words of our Creator. "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Exodus 12:49. Whether we will receive it our not, that word "stranger" is the word "alien", and never once is it prefixed by our Creator with the adjective "Illegal." "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." Leviticus 19:33, 34. "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 24:22. "And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger [alien], or a sojourner; that he may live with thee." Leviticus 25:35. "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger [alien] that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment." Deuteronomy 1:16, 17. "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger [alien]:" Deuteronomy 10:17 -19.

Our Creator even swears according to His Word, to bring bring great and damnable judgment against any and all nations, just as He would if it practiced witchcraft, all those who oppress the aliens within their land, "And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger [alien] from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts." Malachi 3:5. Dare we defy the Lord God Almighty? Are we stronger than He? If we believe that God should bless America, then we must NOT provoke His Wrath upon America by oppressing the strangers [aliens] that dwell among us. God forbid! We are obligated to respect aliens just as we do widows and orphans [fatherless]. Shall we, or Congress, propose to ostracize widows and orphans? Of course not. And if we so presumed that we could, do we think we shall escape the judgment of God on our nation? In fact, when any nation presumes to oppress the aliens within their midst, they risk their nation becoming overcome by those very same aliens, who may institute the laws to oppress those native born. This too is a sound principle of Scripture. Just so anyone thinks I have an ax to grid stating what I have said, I set forth the following;

- Ron Branson, born in St. Louis from a union of male and female parents who were born in the America, namely Missouri and Illinois, who were both saved from sin by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Finally, let me say, as I sat before a judge who disagreed with me in Superior Court, he stated, "Mr. Branson, if you disagree with the laws we have here in California, you need to take that up with the legislators in Sacramento." Upon hearing these words, the Lord spoke to me internally, saying, "Behold, there stands before you, judge, one greater that all the legislators within the State of California." and God told me that not only was this judge, but all those legislators of which he relies, shall one day stand before me in judgment pursuant to I Corinthians 6:2, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" It has been my joy to respond to your very valid concern respecting our borders around America from the Word of God.

Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
VictoryUSA@...


*  *  *


-------- Original Message --------
Excellent, Ron.  But I'm left with a question:  How SHOULD our borders be being protected agains illegal immigration?

-Steve-

s@...

- - - - -
On 2/26/2013 11:24 PM, Ron Branson wrote:

The Belligerent Claimant in Person


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg&sns=em

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." [Emphasis added.]



Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1765 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 5:26 pm
Subject: EXCELLENT MESSAGE FROM A VIRTUAL PRESIDENT
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


EXCELLENT MESSAGE FROM A VIRTUAL PRESIDENT



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: MESSAGE FROM A VIRTUAL PRESIDENT
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:59:55 -0800
From: Jack Peach <peachjd@...>


 
Excellent message from a Virtual President that needs to get out about the value of the Constitution of the United States (particularly as it applies to the Second Amendment)
Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1766 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:53 pm
Subject: Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

To The Constitution Club:

Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

(a) Preamble.  The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints of willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate because of conflicts of interest in judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance and affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."

(b) Definitions.  For purposes of this legislation:

  1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.
  2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.
  3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.
  4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth in paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).
  5. Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.

(c) Immunity.  Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunity shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.

(d) Special Federal Grand Jury.  There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction, having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal judge would be frivolous and harassing or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.

(e) Professional Counsel.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand Jury.

(f) Establishment of Special Federal Grand Jury Seat.  A Special Federal Grand Jury seat is hereby created, which seat shall be located in excess of one mile of any federal judicial body.

(g) Filing Fees.  Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.

(h) Annual Funding.  Should this statute lack sufficient funding through its filing fees under paragraph (g) and fines imposed under paragraph (q), which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account created by this statute in paragraph (j) for its operational expenses, Congress may impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any and all necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation.

(i) Compensation of Jurors.  Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to fifty percent of a federal district judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.

(j) Annual Budget.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual operating budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust balance within any budget year drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress, which shall replenish the account, prorated based on actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United States Treasury.

(k) Jurisdiction.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except as provided in paragraph (r), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is intended to apply remedially and retroactively.

(l) Qualifications of Jurors.  A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and an inhabitant of Washington, D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.

(m) Selection of Jurors.  The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on voters' rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.

(n) Service of Jurors.  Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Federal Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Federal Grand Jury and new citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

(o) Procedures.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Federal Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of these United States with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal Grand Jury. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.

(p) Removal.  Whenever any federal judge shall have received more than three strikes, the federal judge shall automatically be brought up on charges before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct. Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.

(q) Indictment.  Should the Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any federal judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such federal judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be). The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within these United States. Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.

(r) Criminal Procedures.  In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

(s) Public Indemnification.  No federal judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute.

(t) Redress.  The provisions of this statute are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

(u) Preeminence.  Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case of conflict with any other federal statute, case law, or common law to the contrary. The foreperson of the Special Federal Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this statute to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July.


Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1767 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:25 am
Subject: ACCESS TO GRAND JURIES
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

ACCESS TO GRAND JURIES


Dear Thomas Bumgardner:

I am honored that you have shared with me concerning Grand Juries. It is exciting to see more and more People are having their eyes opened as to the purpose and value of Grand Juries. (Until the People center on Grand Juries, they have not yet entered the portals of the front lines.)

I just sent out to everyone "The Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation." It deals very much with the subject and objective of your email, which is access to the Federal Grand Juries.

Because governments are aware of the exclusive power and authority of Grand Juries, they have subtly conveyed away Grand Juries from the People. What they wish to keep the People ignorant of, and the subject of which I center upon, is that the Grand Juries are us, the People. They would have us think that when a person is selected to serve upon the Grand Jury they, all of a sudden, become exclusive of the People, and work only for the government. This is not only not so, but is contrary to the Constitution. The salient portion is the Fifth Amendment, to wit; "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..." So we instantly see an exclusiveness of the operation of the Grand Jury which no other entity within our system of justice, whether state or federal, can attain unto.

When I wrote the J.A.I.L. Initiative, I was asked by the California Legislative Analyst under the authority of which branch of government; Legislative, Executive, or Judicial, does the Special Grand Jury operate. I told the Legislative Analyst that it operated under none of the branches of government, rather that the Grand Jury was the People, and that the People do not function under the authority of any government, rather, that the three branches of government derive their just powers from the consent of the People. They then asked me that since no judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury may sit in judgment upon the Constitutionality of the Initiative, who did I propose should sit in such judgment. I responded that I am unable to advise you as to how the Initiative can be attacked, but our defense will be Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, to wit; "All political power is inherent in the People. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good my require."

Now, coming back to access to Grand Juries. It is easily discerned that no capital or infamous crime (felony) against anyone may proceed without the participation of the Grand Jury. This proceeding is recognized in the Constitution as "Probable Cause." The subject of Probable Cause is identified in the immediately proceeding Forth Amendment, "The right of the People to be secure in the persons, houses papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In other words, all governments are totally impotent without the Probable Cause permission of the People in the forum of the Grand Jury. This accords with the wording of our Declaration of Independence, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."  The Grand Jury is the power of the People to act both as a shield and as a sword. A "presentment" refers to to the shield, and the indictment refers to the sword. In either case, the proceeding begins and ends with the People. We are, in affect, the Alpha and the Omega when in comes to all felonies. Outside of felonies, the only other class of crimes is misdemeanors. There are no such things as "Infractions," within the Constitution. In lesser crimes of misdemeanors we authorize magistrates, sitting not as judges, and who are independent of court jurisdiction, to determine Probable Cause. But whether high crimes or misdemeanors, determination of Probable Cause is an absolute! This is why all traffic matters are unconstitutional because they are conducted in the absence of Probable Cause. (They are further absent a jury trial as required in Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 3.)

"Indictments" are exclusively and solely the Power of the People sitting as Grand Jurors. They have the power to go after anyone, within their exclusive judgment, they believe should be brought before the People in a criminal trial. This raises the question, how is the Grand Jury to be informed when the subject for their consideration to be indicted, are government officials? Did our Founding Fathers intend that only government may make a "presentments" against government, and preclude the People access to themselves as Grand Jurors? Such conclusion would be absurd, as such though would give only the government the right to determine if its own  actions are justified. Obviously, such conclusion would be that all power resides within government, and that if they do not wish to seek an indictment against themselves, too bad for the People. While I do believe that such an argument is Constitutionally absurd, it is this very point I was very careful to make ever so clear within the J.A.I.L. Initiative. Once J.A.I.L. is incorporated into our Constitutions, governments can no longer make, or fantasize such absurd conclusion.
We must not loose sight of the fact that,
"All political power is inherent in the People....They have the right to alter or reform it when the public good my require."

Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
VictoryUSA@...
http://www.jail4judges.org




-------- Original Message --------

Mister Branson, I must add a personal experience pertaining to the Grand Jury.

Several years ago I wanted to bring charges against federal officials. Recommendations were made as to whom I should call and my final telephone call was to the federal prosecutor in Charleston, West Virginia.

The prosecutor advised me that the location and date of all federal grand juries were confidential, that I could have no access to them for any matter.

The enumerated powers makes it very clear that only Congress makes Rules for all federal government activities. Who maintains that no cameras are allowed in the Supreme Court? Who maintains that a defendant's lawyer may not address a Grand Jury? Who maintains that a judge may sentence any person to prison in the United States with the sole exception of treason?

The Greatest Story Ever Told hinges not on politics, but religion.

My final book hinges on politics, not religion. A title choice now under consideration is The Greatest Legal Story Ever Told. Its principal theme is trial by jury. It attacks a lot of P's; politics, press, principles and principals, prostitutes and preachers.

I wonder how a preacher's sermon would change if, --under the Constitution's The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury,-- all whores subjected to criminal charges were publicly tried?

Thomas E. Bumgardner

304-753-6377

 

 


Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1768 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:32 am
Subject: Preparing for a Different Type of War
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Preparing for a Different Type of War
Homeland Security Refuses to Answer!


Marine Corp Four Star General James Amos tells his Marines to save ammo and prepare for a different kind of battle.

As a Naval Aviator, Amos commanded the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and 2004. He served as the 31st Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 3, 2008 to October 22, 2010. Amos assumed his current assignment on October 22, 2010.

In his YouTube video, General Amos warns about a “different landscape” and encourages people to think smarter. The General encourages Marines to, “Save every round, every gallon of gas.”

This comes during a time when the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling over 2 billion rounds of ammunition, and has purchased nearly 3000 tanks, and refuses to answer the question as to why they are doing this.

Captain Terry M. Hostile, United States Army, Retired, is urging citizens to write the Senators demanding answers from the Department of Homeland Security.

In a recent interview with Rep. Huelskamp at CPAC, he expressed concerns to the DHS over these purchases, but cannot get any answers. “They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to that,” Huelskamp said on the video of the purchases.





Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1769 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:58 pm
Subject: * * * Clarifying Presentments to Grand Juries * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Clarifying Presentments to Grand Juries
By Ron Branson
March 28, 2013

Dear David Phillips:

You have stated to me "We need to research and clarify the procedure for a Special Grand Jury." Your concern will provide a wonderful and educational subject for discussion for everyone, hence, I am distributing for all to be a part.

I trust that by now you have received my dissertation on this matter which I sent to
Thomas Bumgardner. Therein, I discussed that our Founding Fathers, having seen the need for the People to be the last and final word in control of their government, surely did not mean to preclude the People from access to their own Grand Juries in making Presentments. Such preclusion would leave the government uniquely in the position of bring the only one who could bring its own conduct before Grand Juries.

In opposing such argument, I would like to appeal to pure logic. In Declaration of Independence our Founding Fathers set forth that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. It would be an absolute senseless contradiction to reason that our Founding Fathers meant to preclude us, the People, from the Grand Jury process, and preserve that right exclusively to governments policing themselves. This would lead to an inevitable revolt by the People, and certain anarchy when the People decided that they had had enough crime and politicking by their government. Are we not nearing that stage now, which proves my point? Access to Grand Juries by the People is an absolute necessity if we are going to preserve the future of our country!

Yes, you are correct, this issue of presentments needs to be clarified to make it clear that the People have access to Grand Juries. This clarification is precisely what I was very careful to include within the creation of the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury system. J.A.I.L. does not tamper with the Fifth Amendment as written, but leaves it totally intact. Rather it creates a SPECIAL Grand Jury specifically reserved as a Sword in the hands of the People to fill this needed clarification.

The government does perceives what J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) will do on this issue, and that is precisely why it scares the [explicitive deleted] out of them. Read how our State Attorney General, Bill Lockyer in California, said about J.A.I.L. when he defined what this Initiative would do if passed in California; 
"JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation."

Thus, through this J.A.I.L. Initiative, as explained by the Attorney General, the People can then reach government officials by making them the subject of civil lawsuits, and naming their criminal conduct. We fully anticipate that the judges will cover for these criminal charges against government officials. So then, we the People, just exhaust all judicial remedies within the State, thus making these judges also culpable in the government's crimes as fellow conspirators. Thus, we gain access now to the Special Grand Jury without any participation or interference of District Attorneys or State Attorney Generals. It will be just us in the process, and we, the People, have regained total control over our government, as the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be.

Thank you for being sharp in recognizing this necessity for this clarification in Grand Jury Presentments.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...



 
-------- Original Message --------
Ron -
 
We need to research and clarify the procedure for a Special Grand Jury to make a PRESENTMENT.
 
Many people are aware of this possibility, but not the actual procedure.
 
I think if we could come up with the proper procedure (and it may vary slightly from place to place), it would be a great help.
 
But, you are on the right track.

    David Phillips
    lasertech2008@...

From: Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@...>
To: Arnie <arnie@...>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:19 AM
Subject: Seeking Inferior Remedies!

Seeking Inferior Remedies!
By Ron Branson

This past Saturday, March 23rd, 2013, I was invited to speak at the Simi Valley Library, (California) in which I presented the issue that Grand Juries are the highest and most supreme power within these United States. No serious criminal action of any kind, may be commenced against any person without their authority, to wit; "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury ..."  Amendment V,  U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the People within the various States have a superior power compared to the limited federal power of government as defined in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Within the States, the People themselves have, and retain to themselves all political power, and have the right to alter or amend all forms of government, to wit; "All political power is inherent in the People. .... [T]hey have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." Art. II, Sec. 1, California Constitution. (See also other various State's Constitutions)

So, if all political power resides within the People, and the People, sitting as Grand Jurors, have the ultimate control over all criminal matters and are free to indict whomsoever they will, including public officials, why propose Recalls of public officials? Are we not thereby relinquishing our ultimate power of indictment through ourselves as Grand Jurors, to a lessor more impotent means of seeking a remedy through playing in a political sand box?

I have presented the one and only way we will ever recover our country, and that is through our inherent power to establish Special Grand Juries throughout the various States. But yet we choose to ignore this ultimate power reserved only to us, and seek expensive inferior time-consuming political remedies.

Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
VictoryUSA@...


Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1770 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:32 pm
Subject: "J.A.I.L. FOR JUDGES IS THE ANSWER"
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


March 27, 2013

RE: "J.A.I.L. FOR JUDGES IS THE ANSWER"
AN EXHIBIT IN CV05-00030 - JUSTICE VS. HARMON
By Bobby Harmon
bobby_harmon@...
(All Links are Hot)

Due to new discoveries of FACTS related to this lawsuit (which I maintain is a "prior restraint" of my constitutional rights of Free Speech held in a Kangaroo Court and in violation of Federal and State Anti-SLAPP statutes), I am adding the subject Exhibit (see attached).   ....

Very truly yours,

Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM  ....


From the April, 2000 Idaho Observer:

J.A.I.L. is the Answer
by Hari Heath

Our criminal court system is all too often just that -- criminal. Routinely, people who do no harm to another get sent to jail and fined. Their property may be taken under some cloak of authority. Their children sometimes are confiscated “to protect them.” The “crimes” they are convicted of, may be manufactured to protect someone “in the system,” or to “enforce” a political prosecution. And who's gonna stop a judge from committing criminal acts from the bench? Another judge?

“Absolute Immunity” they claim. Or so the judges have legislated for themselves by “doctrine.” They can do whatever they want, with impunity. And often they do. By cleverly short circuiting constitutional protections, they have become a law unto themselves. Keeping enforcement of their transgressions “in house,” with mandatory membership for all in the bar associations, our judiciary is often more criminal than the people paraded before them in handcuffs.

When a judicial misconduct complaint is filed against a judge, who is going to hear and decide the remedy for the misconduct? A fellow judge and bar association member?

Idaho's Chief Federal District Judge Edward J. Lodge is a stellar example of a corrupt judicial officer and the failure of our present remedies to have any useful effect. Over 400 judicial misconduct complaints (28 USC 372c) have been filed against Lodge with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, yet Lodge is still on the bench and no action has been taken to remedy those complaints from the citizens he has maligned.

If you try to complain to a Grand Jury about criminal misconduct of a judicial officer, who will control your access? A prosecutor holds the gate key to the Grand Jury. Idaho Code 19-4101 provides a method for removing officials for willful, corrupt misconduct of office. It requires accessing the Grand Jury. Can you get past the bar association members who control the access to the Grand Jury?

Can you complain to the attorney general about criminal misconduct and get relief? More than likely you will be opposed, rather than assisted by the attorney general. When our rights or property have been plundered away by corrupt judicial officers and civil process fails to provide any remedy, what's the people's solution?

J. A. I. L. -- the Judicial Accountability and Integrity Law

Begun in California as an effort by Ron Branson to put an initiative on the ballot creating a special citizen friendly remedy to the now rampant judicial corruption, the Jail4Judges movement is now spreading like a fire in dry brush. In a campaign using e-mail and the internet, Jail4Judges is promoting a sound, well thought out method to return control of the third branch of the government to the people.

The basic principle of the J.A.I.L. initiative is to create Special Grand Juries to investigate the corrupt acts of judicial officers. These Grand Juries would provide citizens a direct access to an effective remedy for judicial corruption. These Grand Juries would have the power to indict, and provide for the trial, conviction and sentencing of judicial officers when it can be proven that the judicial officers committed acts of willful corruption. This takes the control of these types of proceedings away from the brethren of the bench, and places it in special citizen juries.

Several other states including Washington, Montana and Georgia are beginning their own J.A.I.L. initiatives or legislation. There is an effort by Representative John Duncan to introduce federal J.A.I.L. legislation in Congress. Representative Duncan has forwarded the J.A.I.L. Accountability Bill to Congressman Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. If passed, it will create a unique new remedy to effectively deal with those members of the federal judiciary who think they are the law -- the Constitution and people's rights be damned....

Let's create the remedy for criminal courts. J.A.I.L. is the answer!



March 26, 2013


(a) Preamble.  The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints of willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate because of conflicts of interest in judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance and affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following legislation which shall be known as the"Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."

(b) Definitions.  For purposes of this legislation:
  1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.
  2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.
  3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.
  4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth in paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).
  5. Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.
(c) Immunity.  Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunity shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior....

(r) Criminal Procedures.  In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

(s) Public Indemnification.  No federal judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute....





Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1771 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 3, 2013 2:43 pm
Subject: * * * Who Controls America? Attorneys or Judges? * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Who Controls America?
Attorneys or Judges?



Dear Bill Scheidler:

There is a great misconception that we need to go after attorneys as our target. Early on within the J.A.I.L. Initiative, I contacted Congressman Ron Paul about sponsoring JAIL4Judges. I was contacted by a staff member expressing it is better that we focus more on attorneys.

If we exercise discernment, we will understand that JAIL4Judges will also reach wayward attorneys at the same time as we reach unaccountable judges. Unaccountable attorneys are merely the offspring of unaccountable judges, for attorneys will do only what they can get away with before the judges, or else they will face sanctions. This statement can also be said of all wayward politicians.

We are taught that we have three co-equal branches of government. This is not true. Every law passed by the Legislature is subject to the interpretation of a judge, or judges, somewhere. The same is true of the Executive Branch. Consider Richard Nixon who asserted that as president, he had executive privileges, and was not subject to the subpoena power of the Judicial Branch of government. But he lost that argument, for the Judicial Branch determined that nevertheless, he had to obey their orders. Consequently, he resigned from the presidency.

As a practical matter, we have but only one branch of government ruling this country, and that is the Judiciary. And what they say goes. Our country is ultimately run in totality by five attorneys sitting in black robes. If they say we can kill the unborn, that becomes the law. If they say we cannot pray in school, by that pronouncement, it becomes unConstitutional to pray in schools. If they determine that DOMA passed by Congress is unConstitutional, it is thereby an unConstitutional law to defend conventional marriage. If they say that ObamaCare is Constitutional, then it shall stand regardless of how many states challenge it, or who goes up against it. No matter where anything starts, it ends up in the courts, and only they will decide whether it is "the Law" or not. All things are decided by the men is black robes, and without them, nothing stands. The decision of one man who is a judge trumps the will of the entire majority of the People even if it be voted in by over seven million voters, and the will of the People becomes part of the Constitution.

If there is no law on the books that satisfies the judge, no problem, they can just write a new law that pleases them. Anyone who defies his new law may be thrown into jail to learn the lesson that you do no defy a judge, for his edict is the highest of all laws. He speaks, and it is so. He legislates the law with finality, and no one dares defy him. Such is especially true when there are five of this judges sitting on the bench. Their edicts may counter God and Heaven. What they say is true whether it be true or not! They have no ethic standards. If they wish to go out golfing with parties in cases currently before them, no problem, they are judges. Judges are above all laws, and even the Constitution. Their Oaths mean nothing, for they are the Constitution. They speak, and it is do. What they say is the Supreme Law of the land, all Peoples, all laws, and all legislators to the contrary notwithstanding.

If is for this reason that the People shall never obtain their freedom until they themselves protect their own interests by the creation of Special Grand Juries that take over the judicial power and scope of Judicial Immunity. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus, he who controls the Judges will control America, and that control must be the People!

Thank you, Bill Scheidler, for your expressing your concerns that we go after lawyers.

Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L Commander-In-Chief
VictoryUSA@...




-------- Original Message --------
EXACTLY what is needed!  But is only a start... we already have laws on the books that should make such a "initiative" and it is the statutory oath attorneys take to be "HONEST" and to PRESENT ALL THE FACTS and ALL THE LAW... even those facts and law contrary to their client's position.

So while the "initiative" is needed, it should also include that attorney who led the judge astray.   They ALL should come under the "three strike rule."

Please keep me posted on how you present this initiative and its reaction.

Bill Scheidler
http://www.corruptwa.com



Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

(California Initiative)

Preamble. We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as Sec. 32 to Article I, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."

1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:

  1. Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.
  2. Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.
  3. Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.
  4. Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.
  5. Juror: A Special Grand Juror.
  6. Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.

2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.

3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.

4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.

5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.

6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.

7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.

8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.

9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.

10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty Superior Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.

11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.

12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of California for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious act.

13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.

14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of California and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.

16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.

17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.

19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.

23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.


Copyrighted 2003 Library of Congress




Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1772 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 5, 2013 8:17 pm
Subject: Do You Have An Answer?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Do You Have An Answer?
How do I expose Judicial Corruption in a current California case (Independant Action in Equity to secure relief from a Void Judgment of conviction on grounds of fraud upon the court amounting to "Extrinsic Fraud"). The conviction is a misdemeanor DUI case in which the California Dept. Of Motor Vehicles issued an Order of Set Aside.
The Alameda County Superior Court on April 3, 2013, issued an Order Granting a Motion by Alameda County Counsel to Declare me a Vexatious litigant.
I have been fighting this wrong for over twenty years. I have a Ninth Circuit ruling issued in Part in my favor that allows a malicious prosecution action to be filed once the conviction is overturned or otherwise invalidated. See Avaro Rodriguez v. County of Alameda 85 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 1996). Google or Yahoo search.
The State Courts have been discovered of lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. They acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction and have been trying to cover this up. There is a state deputy attorney general and many others implicated. Immunity defense is lost.
     Alvaro
    arodri10@...



Dear Alvaro:

You are operating under a deception that we have laws within this country, that those laws are fixed standards, and that someone within government really cares. This foundational thinking is an illusion. This is why we must return to the foundational thinking of remedies must come directly from the People exclusive of government!  So here is my proposal after many years of studying the answer to your question:


Initiative

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

(California Initiative - Ver. 2-7-07)

Preamble. We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as Sec. 32 to Article I, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."

1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:

  1. Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.
  2. Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.
  3. Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.
  4. Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.
  5. Juror: A Special Grand Juror.
  6. Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.

2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.

3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.

4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.

5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.

6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.

7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.

8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.

9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.

10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty Superior Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.

11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.

12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of California for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious act.

13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.

14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of California and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.

16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.

17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.

19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.

23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.

Written by Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...

Copyrighted Library of Congress 9/12/03

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1773 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 6, 2013 4:19 pm
Subject: * * * Power To The People * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Power To The People
Missouri Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 3

Dear Ed Lewis:

You cite valid laws, but how are such laws useful to us without a forum of the People to enforce them? We are being deprived of access to the People's Grand Juries for enforcement. I am hearing now complaints of public officials holding office absent an Oath of Office, though such is mandated by our Constitution.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Article VI. The People are finding that even though this is clearly mandated, there is no way to enforce it.

You state,
"It is my understanding the fees cannot be charged for people acting in their own actions," and I am with you on this, but the People have no way to enforce it. All provisions within law are like Article I, Sec. 8 & 10 which provides that Congress shall coin money, and regulate the value thereof, and that no state shall make anything other than gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt. "So What?"   

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it has no enforcement power. It is for this reason I have written J.A.I.L. for the People to regain enforcement power over their public officials.

You state,
"Our right to petitioning government for redress cannot lawfully or legally be denied for any reason." This was precisely the argument of Bob Schulz before the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Attorney argued successfully that while the people have this right, the government is not obligated to listen or to honor them." Petition DENIED, Nov. 29, 2010. You state, "Attorneys, attorney/judges, and other officials violate their Oaths of Office with every case in which they violate our right to petition and act without jurisdiction that may give the case and court created by them standing." But the courts are not concerned with standing.

You cite to the Constitution of my home state of Missouri, Art. I, Sec. 3, 
"That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

Now this is real law providing for a real remedy, but the question is, when are the People going to wake up to the fact that they are running their heads into a brick wall without instituting JAIL4Judges through this available remedy. Even the U.S. Criminal Statutes of Title 18, Sec. 241 and 242 are useless and impotent to the People without JAIL4Judges. Believe it or not, I just heard the argument to me on a radio show that FREEDOM is too expensive to acquire. By practice, it appears that everyone agrees with him. But I pointed out that our Founding Fathers said, "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...




-------- Original Message --------
Dear Ron,
 
It is my understanding the fees cannot be charged for people acting in their own actions due to the facts that the people pay for the courthouse and all utilities, materials, equipment, etc. and the wages of court clerks and the administrative executives of the corporation.  We call them "judges".  For a clerk to demand the fee is extortion if one knows they are not liable for the fee.  We do not have to buy justice in any manner, especially by a chartered corporation such as city, county, and state so-called "governments", nor do we .  The same holds true on the federal level.  "[a]t common law, extortion was an offense committed by a public official who took 'by color of his office' money that was not due to him for the performance of his official duties. . . . Extortion by the public official was the rough equivalent of what we would now describe as 'taking a bribe.'" Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992).
 
Our right to petitioning government for redress cannot lawfully or legally be denied for any reason.  Attorneys must pay when representing corporations and other artificial entities so that the use of our buildings, materials, etc. is paid for, the same reason that commercial gain operations that use our roadways must pay for them through licensing, etc.  We are not made liable for the use of our own roads, which has been the decision of many high court rulings, as the use of our own motorized means of conveyance on the roads owned by us cannot legally have any fees attached.  We have been duped.
 
Title 18, Section 241, gives no exceptions for officials, as I am sure you know (plus, the above).  Title 18, Section 242, gives no exception. Under color of law can only refer to officials that act ultra virus, or commits Section 1961 et seq or any other crimes against the people.  No where in the Constitution or statutes written by government to control their actions and the actions of artificial persons created by them are excepted.   In fact they are supposed to be more controlled than people who are not officials or part of corporations, etc. that are created by government.  They - officials - do not have the authority to live every day in their official duties free of law.  It is quite the contrary.
 
There is no state, county or city officials, or a combination of these artificial creations that has standing to carry out any action, including not hearing a case petitioned for.  They and the courts have exactly zero jurisdiction in our grievances we file for.  Attorneys, attorney/judges, and other officials violate their Oaths of Office with every case in which they violate our right to petition and act without jurisdiction that may give the case and court created by them standing. 
 
If they had factual jurisdiction, we would be under their control, but there is no authority given for that, as "freedom" means not under government control" and so does "liberty."  One cannot possibly be free or living in liberty, including if the Declaration and Constitution for these united States had stated "...unless some bureaucrat says differently" in regards to the securing of rights and establishing the government by the people.  Such violates every every premise this land was founded on. 
 
There is in fact no official immunity and the normal 11th Amendment claim is as false as the sun rising in the west.  It does not speak of immunity at all, because the concept was made and perpetuated by law breaking officials in their official capacities.  If officials obeyed the rule of law, the limitations on government, their Oaths of Office, and their subservience to the people, they would not carry on the myth of official immunity.  But, they don't and they continue acting as the most vile of criminal organizations, spending their careers or whatever as professional criminals quite similar to the actions of such organizations as the mafia.  They even call what used to be police, "law enforcers".  The mob and mafia had the same, the thugs that forced compliance.
 
Missouri Law, which most people call the Missouri Constitution makes the subservience of government and it enforcers quite clear in Article I, Section 3.  I suspect every state's constitution should have a similar provision.  This is copied from the Revised Statutes of Missouri.
 

Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 3


August 28, 2005


Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government.

Section 3. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.   ....



Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1774 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Apr 9, 2013 1:32 am
Subject: * * * Enforcing The Law, But Violating The Constitution! * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Enforcing The Law,
But Violating The Constitution!

By Ron Branson
April 8, 2013

We are in an age of passing laws. There is a law for everything! Whenever we perceive that something has gone wrong, we automatically think that we need to legislate another law. We even have a saying, "There outa be a law against that!" We now have more laws than any human being can possible reckon with.

Surprising to most, the more laws legislated within a nation, the more evil the nation becomes, for righteousness comes not by the law. Every tyrant establishes his dictatorship by new laws. Adolf Hitler was lawfully elected to office, and it was through fear instilled in the People that he announced, "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." It was through fear that he instituted domestic security laws, creating the dreaded Gestapo that brought about the killing of millions of his own nation. Appropriate here is the quote of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


Now as to America, let us take up just one class of the enumerable hundreds of thousands of laws now on the books; - Gun laws. There are currently an estimated 20,000 laws relating to gun ownership. Federal laws, state laws, county laws, city and local regulations. There are even imagined gun laws that are not laws, but enforced as laws.

Right now Congress is fighting over proposed passage of a number of new gun laws in addition to the already 20,000 existing gun laws. Does it dawn on anybody, that there are absolutely no guns laws that can be passed that will quell the issue of the right of the People to keep and bear arms? We just as well pass a law making it a crime to commit suicide with the penalty being death! We could even increase the penalty if the person uses a bomb to blow themselves. Gee, we could eliminate armed bank robberies by posting signs  "No guns allowed in bank." I think you have gotten my point.

With respect to these 20,000 gun laws in America there is but one gun law that controls all others, and it reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To those unfamiliar with those words, it is the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Those words were initiated by our Founding Fathers and placed into our Constitution, and those words have never changed throughout the entire history of the United States.

And for those unfamiliar with the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, to wit;
  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ..." Article VI, Clause 2 & 3. So the entire gun debate boils down to this. The supreme law of land verses the nineteen thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine laws infringing the supreme law of the land.

The battle line seems to be clear. According to the politicians, the Second Amendment should read; "Swarms of uniformed officers bearing guns and badges being necessary to keep us all safe, the people may have and bear such specified arms under specified and restricted circumstances as approved by federal, state, and local politicians and judges. Under no circumstances shall such arms have clips in excess of ten rounds, nor shall such arms look like one of those viewed by liberal politicians as an assault rifle, having a scope, a flash guard, and a collapsible stock. Such permitted guns shall only be used at authorized shooting ranges and for authorized hunting of specified animals. Such restrictions may be extended on any notion at any time without further notice."


I have entitled this article, "Enforcing The Law, But Violating The Constitution." So what is the point? My point is that the People will regain the plan wording of the Second Amendment when they decide to adopt the JAIL4Judges provision enforcing the pure words of the Constitution.

Paragraph 2 of the California Judicial Accountability Initiative Law specifies, 2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States.
" The full provisions of J.A.I.L. are provided for you here, http://www.jail4judges.org.

Under the J.A.I.L. Provisions who determines if any judge has deliberately violated the Constitution? It is us, we the People. We have the absolute power and authority of defanging nineteen thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine politicians gun laws in one swift swoop with the sword of the supreme law of the land. And we do it through the Initiative Process, "All political power is inherent in the People. ... they have the right to alter or reform [government] when the public good may require." Art. II, Sec. 1, Calif. Const. Also in other state's Constitutions.

This gun issue alone will sweep judges off the bench with its "Three Strikes and You Are Out" penalty as judges seek to enforce all these politicans gun laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment. The People will be saying, in effect, "What part of '...shall not be infringed,' do you not understand?"

Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
VictoryUSA@...


Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1775 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:03 am
Subject: Which Controls? The Supreme Law of the Land, or George Code?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


Which Controls?
The Supreme Law of the Land, or Georgia Code?



"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Article VI, Clause 2 and 3.


State of Georgia contends such Oath is unnecessary!

"The official acts of an officer shall be valid regardless of his omission to take and file the oath, except in cases where so specially declared." (Georgia Code, Section 45-3-10)




This is just one example why we must pass JAIL4Judges.
http://ga.jail4judges.org/GA_initiative.html



Enforcing The Law,
But Violating The Constitution!

By Ron Branson
April 8, 2013

We are in an age of passing laws. There is a law for everything! Whenever we perceive that something has gone wrong, we automatically think that we need to legislate another law. We even have a saying, "There outa be a law against that!" We now have more laws than any human being can possible reckon with.

Surprising to most, the more laws legislated within a nation, the more evil the nation becomes, for righteousness comes not by the law. Every tyrant establishes his dictatorship by new laws. Adolf Hitler was lawfully elected to office, and it was through fear instilled in the People that he announced, "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." It was through fear that he instituted domestic security laws, creating the dreaded Gestapo that brought about the killing of millions of his own nation. Appropriate here is the quote of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


Now as to America, let us take up just one class of the enumerable hundreds of thousands of laws now on the books; - Gun laws. There are currently an estimated 20,000 laws relating to gun ownership. Federal laws, state laws, county laws, city and local regulations. There are even imagined gun laws that are not laws, but enforced as laws.

Right now Congress is fighting over proposed passage of a number of new gun laws in addition to the already 20,000 existing gun laws. Does it dawn on anybody, that there are absolutely no guns laws that can be passed that will quell the issue of the right of the People to keep and bear arms? We just as well pass a law making it a crime to commit suicide with the penalty being death! We could even increase the penalty if the person uses a bomb to blow themselves. Gee, we could eliminate armed bank robberies by posting signs  "No guns allowed in bank." I think you have gotten my point.

With respect to these 20,000 gun laws in America there is but one gun law that controls all others, and it reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To those unfamiliar with those words, it is the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Those words were initiated by our Founding Fathers and placed into our Constitution, and those words have never changed throughout the entire history of the United States.

And for those unfamiliar with the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, to wit;
  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ..." Article VI, Clause 2 & 3. So the entire gun debate boils down to this. The supreme law of land verses the nineteen thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine laws infringing the supreme law of the land.

The battle line seems to be clear. According to the politicians, the Second Amendment should read; "Swarms of uniformed officers bearing guns and badges being necessary to keep us all safe, the people may have and bear such specified arms under specified and restricted circumstances as approved by federal, state, and local politicians and judges. Under no circumstances shall such arms have clips in excess of ten rounds, nor shall such arms look like one of those viewed by liberal politicians as an assault rifle, having a scope, a flash guard, and a collapsible stock. Such permitted guns shall only be used at authorized shooting ranges and for authorized hunting of specified animals. Such restrictions may be extended on any notion at any time without further notice."


I have entitled this article, "Enforcing The Law, But Violating The Constitution." So what is the point? My point is that the People will regain the plan wording of the Second Amendment when they decide to adopt the JAIL4Judges provision enforcing the pure words of the Constitution.

Paragraph 2 of the California Judicial Accountability Initiative Law specifies, 2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States.
" The full provisions of J.A.I.L. are provided for you here, http://www.jail4judges.org.

Under the J.A.I.L. Provisions who determines if any judge has deliberately violated the Constitution? It is us, we the People. We have the absolute power and authority of defanging nineteen thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine politicians gun laws in one swift swoop with the sword of the supreme law of the land. And we do it through the Initiative Process, "All political power is inherent in the People. ... they have the right to alter or reform [government] when the public good may require." Art. II, Sec. 1, Calif. Const. Also in other state's Constitutions.

This gun issue alone will sweep judges off the bench with its "Three Strikes and You Are Out" penalty as judges seek to enforce all these politicians gun laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment. The People will be saying, in effect, "What part of '...shall not be infringed,' do you not understand?"

Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
VictoryUSA@...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N1ABw6IMKn0#!




Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1776 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:15 am
Subject: The Federal Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


The Federal Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation

Initiative

(a) Preamble.  The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints of willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate because of conflicts of interest in judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance and affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."

(b) Definitions.  For purposes of this legislation:

  1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.
  2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.
  3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.
  4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth in paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).
  5. Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.

(c) Immunity.  Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunity shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.

(d) Special Federal Grand Jury.  There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction, having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal judge would be frivolous and harassing or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.

(e) Professional Counsel.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand Jury.

(f) Establishment of Special Federal Grand Jury Seat.  A Special Federal Grand Jury seat is hereby created, which seat shall be located in excess of one mile of any federal judicial body.

(g) Filing Fees.  Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.

(h) Annual Funding.  Should this statute lack sufficient funding through its filing fees under paragraph (g) and fines imposed under paragraph (q), which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account created by this statute in paragraph (j) for its operational expenses, Congress may impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any and all necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation.

(i) Compensation of Jurors.  Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to fifty percent of a federal district judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.

(j) Annual Budget.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual operating budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust balance within any budget year drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress, which shall replenish the account, prorated based on actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United States Treasury.

(k) Jurisdiction.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except as provided in paragraph (r), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is intended to apply remedially and retroactively.

(l) Qualifications of Jurors.  A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and an inhabitant of Washington, D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.

(m) Selection of Jurors.  The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on voters' rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.

(n) Service of Jurors.  Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Federal Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Federal Grand Jury and new citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

(o) Procedures.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Federal Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of these United States with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal Grand Jury. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.

(p) Removal.  Whenever any federal judge shall have received more than three strikes, the federal judge shall automatically be brought up on charges before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct. Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.

(q) Indictment.  Should the Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any federal judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such federal judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be). The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within these United States. Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.

(r) Criminal Procedures.  In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

(s) Public Indemnification.  No federal judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute.

(t) Redress.  The provisions of this statute are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

(u) Preeminence.  Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case of conflict with any other federal statute, case law, or common law to the contrary. The foreperson of the Special Federal Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this statute to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July.


Attachment: vcard [not shown]

#1777 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:17 am
Subject: L.A. Taxpayers Shell Out Over $4.2 Million For Police Action
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

L.A. Taxpayers Shell Out
Over $4.2 Million For Police Action



We all are aware of the Christopher Dorner incident after LAPD fired him for lying in his police report of abuse by a fellow L.A.P.D. officer. This has cost the L.A. Taxpayers over 4.2 million dollars. Police settlements are certainly not rare, but seldom of this size. Nearly half the City of L.A.'s depleting financial budget is consumed on these police settlements. Even so, there are yet calls from our current mayor for increased taxpayer money for more police, stating, "We can never have enough police."

Such position counters the findings of our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence signed July 4th, 1776, when they wrote, "He [King George, III] has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our People, and eat out their substances." 

Such position is the nature of all governments to unceasingly increase the presence of despots in pursuit of a Police State. It was Fredrick Douglass who stated,
“Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

We shall forever find ourselves strapped with more and more police and lawsuits until the People revolt! Since such is the case, I have proposed a workable solution for People of Los Angeles, and for the mayor, whose position is, "We can never have enough police." My proposal is that we train each and every adult in Los Angeles in the correct handling of guns who are above the age of eighteen, and who are of sound mind, and to certify all of them as sworn police officers, and to issue each of them a gun and a badge. By such means, we will have enough police officers to satisfy the mayor, and at the same time, the People of Los Angeles will be armed and safe.

I guarantee that if my plan is implemented, crime will become almost nonexistent; and then we can lay off much of the government as they are no longer needed, and thus we will save tax dollars, and thus we will have fewer unnecessary lawsuits, and thus we will increase our spendable income, and thus we will create jobs, and thus we will reduce homelessness, and thus we will start the recovery of freedom, and thus ......!


Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
VictoryUSA@...



http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-settles-women-fired-manhunt-201857475.html

Los Angeles settles with women fired on in manhunt



Tuesday April 23, 2013

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The city of Los Angeles reached a $4.2 million settlement with a mother and daughter who were injured when police mistakenly opened fire on them while they were delivering newspapers during the manhunt for disgruntled ex-cop Christopher Dorner, officials said Tuesday.

The money will be split evenly, with $2.1 million going to each woman, said Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for the city attorney's office.

The agreement must still be approved by the Los Angeles City Council.

Margie Carranza and her 71-year-old mother, Emma Hernandez, were delivering papers around 5 a.m. on Feb. 7 when LAPD officers guarding the Torrance home of a target named in an online Dorner manifesto blasted at least 100 rounds at their pickup.

Hernandez was shot in the back and Carranza had minor injuries.

The settlement means they cannot pursue any future injury claims against the city.

Dorner had vowed warfare on Los Angeles Police Department officers and their families for what he called an unfair firing.

He killed four people, including two law enforcement officers, during his nearly one-week run from authorities.

Attorney Glen Jonas, who represents the women, called the settlement amount fair and said it spared the city from defending a case that involved eight police officers and would have likely cost millions of dollars.

"The only certainty was the litigation was going to cost everyone a lot of money and a lot of time," Jonas said.

Jonas sent a nine-page demand to the city more than a month ago that provided an opening to negotiations. He said he negotiated with City Attorney Carmen Trutanich for weeks before the deal was reached on Monday night.

"We're two veteran trial lawyers trying to settle a case, and we both understand the reality of litigation and what it costs to both sides," Jonas said.

Trutanich agreed the settlement was fair and said in a statement he was pleased by how swiftly it was reached.

"We hope Margie and Emma will be able to move on with their lives, the city will be spared millions of dollars in litigation expense and time, and this unfortunate chapter of the Dorner saga will be put to rest," Trutanich said.

The women agreed to receive the payment after June 30 — the end of the fiscal year — to help the city with its budgeting, Jonas said. The agreement came in addition to a separate $40,000 settlement reached earlier for the loss of the women's pickup truck.

"For them, the money is not the issue as much as (the city) just doing the right thing," Jonas said. "Everyone agreed that they were wronged, but we didn't know whether responsibility would be assumed ... It's pleasant to get that done without having to go through years of litigation."

The eight officers remain assigned to non-field duties pending an internal investigation.

___

Tami Abdollah can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/latams


Attachment: vcard [not shown]

Messages 1748 - 1777 of 1790   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help